The Beginnings of Republican Foreign Policy Reform

Matt Purple looks at changes in foreign policy views on the right in the wake of the Iraq war:

A pessimist might argue that conservatives only softened on foreign policy because domestic issues were hogging the spotlight. An embittered cynic might claim that it was nothing more than instinctive distrust of President Obama. And while both of those were probably factors, there was something more there. Conservatives felt chastened by the failures of the Iraq war and the Bush Doctrine. While arguing with liberals, the right was also wrangling with itself, reexamining its first principles and searching for a way to break with the past.

There have been encouraging signs that many conservatives have responded to the Iraq debacle by revisiting assumptions and rediscovering the importance of restraint and prudence in the conduct of foreign policy, and Purple details some of these in his article. Elected Republican opposition to the Libyan war and proposed strikes on Syria was mostly limited to Republicans in the House along with a few members in the Senate, but even that much opposition would have been hard to imagine a few years earlier. No doubt there have been some politicians on the right that have become skeptical of foreign intervention purely for partisan and opportunistic reasons, and the arguments for intervention in both Libya and Syria almost seemed designed to be as unappealing to most conservatives as possible, but whatever the reasons for it opposition to unnecessary wars is an absolutely necessary first step in repairing the extensive damage of the last decade. In that sense, Libya and Syria were relatively easy tests because U.S. military intervention in either country was so clearly not in the American interest, but especially in the case of Syria most Republicans and conservatives nationwide were on the same side as the vast majority of Americans in rejecting war. The gap between the party’s leaders and its supporters on these issues has become wider than it has been in over a decade, and it is going to be closed only when the party acquires more representative leadership that is less interventionist and less aggressive in its foreign policy views.

It remains to be seen if this new skepticism will extend to the Iran debate. The views of Republicans in Congress on Iran have so far been much less encouraging, and there is hardly any vocal conservative support for diplomacy with Iran. As tired and dangerous as the hawks’ arguments on Iran are, they don’t seem to run into the same opposition that hawks encountered in the Libya and Syria debates. All of the same bad habits that plagued conservatives during the Iraq war debate (e.g., threat inflation, disdain for diplomatic solutions, dismissing predictions of the costs and consequences of military action) have been on display in the debate over Iran, and so far they have not faced enough criticism or challenge from conservatives. A proper reckoning with the folly of the Iraq war requires that conservatives come to see the recklessness and irresponsibility of the very idea of preventive war, and that will be one of the main tasks of any effort at Republican foreign policy reform.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 13 comments

13 Responses to The Beginnings of Republican Foreign Policy Reform

Easiest example of how the GOP has NOT changed would be Ted Cruz. The underreported fact that he initially supported airstrikes against Syria before apparently taking note of kneejerk Tea Party opposition to anything having to do with Obama, and thus did an about face shows the rest of the party will likely switch back to pro-interventionist mode once Barack Obama is replaced by a GOPer.

“Libya and Syria were relatively easy tests [for Republicans to show a more moderate foreign policy outlook] because U.S. military intervention in either country was so clearly not in the American interest…”

Neither was the invasion of Iraq. Nor the occupation of Iraq. Nor the occupation of Afghanistan. And that didn’t stop ’em.

The problem is that no matter what they say when they don’t hold the White House because of their view of Executive power—perhaps better put as their view of the non-role of Congress—they are essentially ransoming their voice to whomever wins their primaries and then takes the Big Chair.

To put it another way, near openly declaring that when one of their own occupies the White House they have few important foreign policy views of their own.

And while such extreme hero-worshipping is embarrassing profoundly contrary to their constitutional obligations, neither that nor the fact that such non-seriously debated decision-making can lead to debacles like Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan seems to have chilled same in the Republican heart.

Recall likewise that as a candidate and even early in his tenure the last Bush was about as anti-nation-building and interventionist as you could want. The Shrub wakes up one morning with a changed mind however, and suddenly the Republican Party stands for nothing less than waging a global jihad against a mere tactic, and not just for nation-building, but for region and even religion-building in the Mideast.

The real obstacle to Republican foreign-policy reform then? A lack of seriousness and sobriety and responsibility.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Republicans show signs of their “prudence” when Obama wants to intervene elsewhere and their fecklessness when Obama favors diplomacy. I guess we’ll find out in the primaries if any lessons aren’t simply the results of reflexive opposition to the President

This must be some kind of talking point on MSNBC: Republican opposition to pointless military intervention is nothing more than an attempt to score partisan points against Obama.

Back in the real world, there is significant grass roots conservative hostility to the G.W. Bush approach to foreign policy.

Of course, partisans of both parties tend to react to policy proposals they know little about (which for most people covers almost any foreign policy issue) based on which party proposed it.

The more interesting question is why Democrats and progressives rallied around Obama’s war plans in Libya and Syria, both of which would have — rightly — horrified them coming from a GOP Administration.

Back in the real world, I don’t even watch MSNBC. Also back in the real world, there is significant grass roots conservative hostility to Barack Obama. Grass roots hostility to Bush’s foreign policy, to the extent that it exists, doesn’t seem to be leading to Republican support for a diplomatic approach to Iran.

Actually, that’s not the case in the case of Syria. In spite of Pelosi’s efforts, the majority of the Democratic caucus, along with the majority of the Republican caucus, was set to vote down Obama’s request. It was only the diplomatic intervention of the Russians that caused Obama to rescind his request, avoiding a massive, humiliating defeat in Congress. It was that “progressive,” Barbara Lee, who rallied the Democratic signatures requesting a vote one the question. Do some google searches on the topic.

As long as the political focus remains on domestic issues there won’t be any progress on Republican foreign policy reform. The candidates using the tired hawkish arguments can keep winning elections because voters prefer their policies on social/economic issues. Until interventionism starts to make them lose elections Republicans will be too afraid of angering the neocon elites to break with the party line.

Have no fears. As long as Obama negotiates with Iran, the Republicans will denounce his weakness, do their best to torpedo the negotiations, and bay for war. If Obama should actually prepare for war, the Republicans will be outraged and do their best to block it.

I think that the US and Russia have replaced the Cold War with an arms marketing competition throughout the World. Our arms dealers have sweetened the deal with clients by suggesting that they are also selling the back-up services of the US military. The dealers are currently under pressure from their best customers, Israel and Saudi Arabia to deliver on Iran.

Perhaps if the Americans were the authors of more American foreign policy than one extremist faction of wannabe-Israelis presently are, both conservatism and America in general would be in far better shape. That at least has the appeal of novelty.

If Israel had a clearer set of concerns over Libya and Syria we would’ve heard the drums of war pounding quite loudly. Which would create a real challenge for Republicans in Congress as the wishes of their donor base and the war fatigue of the American public would be in direct opposition.